Monday, 30 September 2013

The warming is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. Someday it will pop out and say BOO!

Discussion between radio 2GB's Alan Jones and Lord Christopher Monckton.

The 2007 IPCC report said that the earth was warming at 0.2ºC per decade, the latest report reduces that figure to 0.12º.

We’re contributing $100 billion a year by 2020 to the UN green climate fund, in the three years to June 30 we  have contributed $600 million! “and the electorate would not have a clue that we were stumping up this money.

Lord Monckton again points out the fraud of the Cook et al paper. Fraudster Peter Gleik is on the board of the journal.

Ross McKittrick pointed out how much theyhave got wrong in the past.

Alan: Carbon dioxide is warming the planet but it won’t be evident in the temperatures, it is hiding somewhere in the bowels of the ocean.

LCM: This is the extraordinary thing. They are saying that it somehow managed to go from the atmosphere into the ocean. Not into the bit of the ocean that touches the atmosphere, no it missed that out and it’s gone down and hidden in the bottom of the ocean where we can’t measure it. And one day it’s going to come out and say boo!

I mean you couldn’t make it up well, yes you could, because that’s exactly what they’ve done.  

* * * * * * * * * * * 

How can people, whether a trained scientist or just an ordinary member of the planet's population believe this drivel?

AR5 and AGW becomes more certain.

 by Anthony Cox

Schrodinger’s box.
AR5 is the 5th IPCC report on climate change. The most noteworthy aspect of this report is that the IPCC is now 95% certain that humans are responsible for climate change. That’s a 50% decrease in uncertainty from the last report which was 90% certain.

Judith Curry has some fun with the process by which the IPCC scientists determine what % of certainty they have about climate change. Straight away a glaring discrepancy is apparent. This is the consensus amongst climate scientists that 97% agree climate change is real.

Does the new 95% certainty level mean that 2% of the consensus have now turned sceptic?

Perhaps it would help in understanding if we returned to basics.

Climate change means the climate is changing due to human emissions of CO2. But is that man-made climate change or AGW? Is AGW the same as natural climate change? If humans were not producing CO2 would nature be changing the climate or would it be standing still?

Some climate scientists say that nature doesn’t change the climate because natural variation always comes back to the same spot so I guess what we are talking about is climate change being entirely due to humans. So we can say with 100% certainty that climate change and AGW are the same thing.

That 95% certainty means there is only a 5% chance that nature, or something else, aliens, God, the CIA, is changing the climate.

This begs the question of what changed the climate before humans took over the role. Equally important, did humans jump right into the job of changing the climate with 95% certainty or has that % been increasing as our expertise at changing the climate increases? Has our ability to change the climate stayed the same and only now has the scientific appreciation caught up? Has our ability to detect our ability to change the climate got better? If so does that explain how the certainty was only previously 90%? Will the level of certainty rise even higher as, presumably, our climate scientists get even better and smarter at detecting humans’ ability to change the climate?

So, many questions remain and one can be certain, yes, even 100% certain, that the IPCC will be addressing them.

For instance the climate change is measured by temperature. One climate scientist who is 100% certain about the 95% certainty in AR5 is now 100% unemployed former Climate Commission Commissioner, Will Steffan. Will notes that temperature has risen 0.89C between 1901 to 2012.

This is fine depending on which thermometer you use. GISS gives Will’s figure of 0.89. HadCrut3 gives 0.8C and CRUTEM4 gives 1.1C. That’s a range of a third of a degree. Which one is right? 

Presumably GISS which means there is a 100% certainty the others are wrong. Who decides? Did they pick a name out of a box; if so that would mean each had a 33% of being right; and even though the 2 losing thermometers are still in the box maybe the climate scientists will give them another chance in the future. Maybe the box is Schrodinger’s box.

What happens to the 5%? Has it still got a shot, is mother-nature still in with a chance? She has if she is a swan. Let’s say climate change is like swans and we’re in the future when the climate scientists are so good they’re now 100% certain at detecting humans’ 100% changing of the climate.

Our theory can be now expressed by saying all swans are black. We send out all our researchers and they bring back all 100 swans and 99 are black and one is white.

Does that prove climate change is proved to 99% certainty or does it mean it has been disproved to 100% certainty?

Who can say? Maybe the swans are chickens and they have simply been plucked.

Friday, 27 September 2013


A press release from the International Climate Science Coalition.

NIPCC report now seen as more reputable

(click here to see last week's ICSC news release in which both 'ocean acidification' and the new NIPCC report were addressed)

Ottawa, Canada, September 27, 2013:  "No one should trust the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report issued today in Stockholm," said Professor Bob Carter, Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. "The IPCC has a history of malfeasance that even includes rewording recommendations of expert science advisors to fit the alarmist agenda of participating governments."

NIPCC report (click here
is now seen by an increasing number of
scientists as more credible than the
reports of the IPCC.
Carter continued, "The credibility of the IPCC has also been irreparably damaged by:
  • Regular, serious science errors;
  • Ignoring research that sheds doubt on the dangerous human-caused global warming hypothesis;
  • The resignation of leading IPCC scientists because of their distrust of its procedures;
  • Student theses and reports by environmental groups treated as equivalent to peer-reviewed science papers in IPCC assessment reports;
  • IPCC scientists attempting to manipulate the scientific literature toward their alarmist stance."

Tom Harris, ICSC executive director predicted, "The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) released today will almost certainly exaggerate the findings of the full science report to be issued next week. This happened in previous years largely because the final version of the SPM is not produced by the scientist writers and reviewers of the full report who do not even see the official SPM before it is published. Instead, the final say lies with governments, whose political representatives go through the SPM line by line and decide on its final form."

IPCC expert reviewer Dr. David Wojick explained, "…What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment."

Climate data analyst John McLean of Melbourne Australia warned, "In previous IPCC assessment reports, media were tricked into reporting that thousands of climate experts endorsed the chapter in which the causes of climate change were discussed. In fact, only a few dozen scientists even commented on that part of the document. At today’s news conference in Stockholm, reporters should insist that the IPCC reveal how many climate experts actually reviewed and agreed with each of AR5’s most important conclusions."

Madhav Khandekar, former Environment Canada Research Scientist, said, "No matter what the IPCC bureaucracy claim, climate science is not even remotely settled. Contrary to forecasts of all the computer models cited by the IPCC, there has been no warming for the past 17 years despite an 8% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. Earth's climate is robust and is not being destabilized due to human-added CO2. In fact, the rise in CO2 has acted as a fertilizer, enriching forestry and other plant growth. Regardless, the modest warming of the 20th century was generally beneficial in terms of longer growing seasons."
"There were as many notable extreme weather events during the 1945 - 1977 cooling period as there are today," Khandekar continued. "And my calculations show no escalating sea level rise for next 10 to 25 years and possibly beyond."

Dr. Tim Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, observed, "Inexplicably, the IPCC have increased their confidence, from 90% (AR4 in 2007) to 95% (AR5 in 2013) that anthropogenic greenhouse gases caused most of the warming of the past half-century despite the fact that all of their forecasts have failed. Their confidence should have dropped, leading governments to take a more cautious approach. Instead, this IPCC report will give governments such as that of U.S. President Barack Obama unjustified confidence to impose CO2 regulations so severe that the world’s most important energy sources, hydrocarbon fuels, will be phased back sentencing billions of the world’s most vulnerable people to the misery of energy poverty.

"The IPCC’s reputation is now beyond retrieval. Their process, methods and science are complete failures," Ball concludes. "Governments, media and the public should turn instead to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, the new report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Citing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, and independent of government interference, CCR-II present the science as it is, not as it can be spun. And it shows something everyone, left, right and centre, should welcome—the balance of the evidence indicates that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide.

SOURCE International Climate Science Coalition
 For further information:

For more information about this announcement visit, or contact:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng.
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Ontario
Phone: 613-728-9200

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

BBC admits warming stalled

From the BBC 10 O'clock News 
23 September, 2013.

Global Warming
No rise since 1998

Will Australia see the Alarmist ABC admit that the warming has stalled?

Also from the BBC: 

 Roger Harrabin interviewed IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri.
Scientists are more certain than ever that greenhouse gases from human activities are heating the planet, the head of the UN's climate panel says. 
Rajendra Pachauri made the comments in an interview with BBC News. 
The panel is due to deliver its latest report on the state of the climate later this week in Stockholm, Sweden. 
Its last report was criticised after an error on glaciers unveiled other flaws, but Prof Pachauri said procedures had been reformed and strengthened. 
He also dismissed suggestions of a slowdown in global warming. 
"There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,” he told me. 
"I don't think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase).
IS it  dismissed? or Just a thought Bubble?  What about "No rise since 1998?"

Why did Pachauri previously admit the pause in warming?

From the Australian February 22, 2013:
THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend. 
Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
However, as Donna Laframboise points out on her "No Frakking Consensus:"
The IPCC is, first and foremost, a UN bureaucracy. Since it is the nature of bureaucracies to pursue their own agendas, science has never been the driving force at the IPCC.
History will not be kind to this organization. The IPCC is a case study in how a UN body took a particular set of political and philosophical beliefs about humanity’s interaction with the environment – and dressed them up as science.
Also History will not be kind to the alarmist ABC, nor the journalists of the mainstream media who have lost the journalists' main tool of scepticism. Nor indeed the IPCC AR5 if they try to hide the stall in warming: From Der Spiegel -
The average global temperature hasn't risen in 15 years, a deviation from climatologists' computer-simulated predictions. 
This is a difficult state of affairs for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will release its next assessment report on global warming on Friday, Sept. 27. 
Germany's highest-ranking climate researcher, physicist Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, is fighting back against this refusal to face facts. Marotzke, who is also president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany's top scientific representative in Stockholm, promises, "We will address this subject head-on." The IPCC, he says, must engage in discussion about the standstill in temperature rise.
Marotzke calls the claim that a temperature plateau isn't significant until it has lasted for over 30 years unscientific. "Thirty years is an arbitrarily selected number," he says. "Some climate phenomena occur on a shorter timescale, some on a longer one." Climate researchers, Marotzke adds, have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth. "That obligates us to clearly state the uncertainties in our predictions as well," he says.
Let's hope that Pachauri's about face on the temperature pauses is not an indication that the IPCC are going to ignore their "obligation to the truth."

H/t Benny Peiser

Antarctic Ice Sets (Another) Record

As reported by the Patriot Post
On Saturday, Antarctic sea ice coverage hit 19.51 million square kilometers. For those mathematically challenged, that's a lot. In fact, it's a new record high. This marks back-to-back years in which the South Pole has broken records – and environmentalists' hearts. 
In response, scientists are left – once again – scratching their heads as they contemplate what went wrong. 
University of Washington's Jinlun Zhang is especially confused: “The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” Zhang claims. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.” 
That's the funny thing about climate: You never know what she'll throw your way. Yet scientists are left puzzled over their apocalyptic prophecies that continually fail to come to fruition.

The Carbon-quake in Australia

The Carbon-quake in Australia

by Viv Forbes and Helpers

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense" 2 October 2013. Please pass on.

To view this newsletter in your browser, or if images are missing from this email, a pdf print-ready copy with all illustrations in place can be downloaded from:

Climate Alarmists Rebuffed in Australian Election.

The climate alarmists and carbon taxers have suffered a body blow in the recent Australian elections – it was a turning point in the war on carbon.

The victorious leader, Tony Abbott, had made it absolutely clear throughout the campaign and in the days immediately after his victory, that abolishing the carbon tax is one of his immediate priorities. Many factors played a part in his victory, but his outspoken and steadfast opposition to the carbon tax was an important one.

Thank you to our supporters for all the congratulatory comments about the role of “Carbon Sense” in preparing the way for this public revolt. Here are a couple:

Well Done Oz, well done Carbon Sense.I congratulate Australia for chucking out those who were destroying your country, and congratulate you and "Carbon Sense" for the unyielding, persistent stream of useful scientific and logical argument against the climate lobby. Your message has been so powerful and so well presented for so long, surely it played a significant part in keeping the majority on the side of reason?M.R.  
I have followed your crusade and cheered for you. After all, your personal energy and determination must have had an important role in reminding your fellow Australians that the scare tactics and policies of climate change fanaticism are nothing more than a scheme of the political left.  I am amazed by your lasting commitment to defend the professional and scientific truth about carbon, and challenge the claims and lies of demagogic politicians and opportunistic "scientists".  I must thank you for your efforts and would be honoured if we could maintain our professional link and friendship.M.M.  
And a General Comment: Maybe you should change your name from “Carbon Sense” to simply “good sense”.Even though I think you’re stark raving mad sometimes – other times I think you’re maybe the only sane one left! You remind me of Sisyphus at times!!   Keep up the battle. K.C. 

There was good news and bad news in the election.

The good news was that the Labor/Green/Independent coalition that had led Australia into the unwinnable war on carbon was decisively rejected. The Labor vote fell to its lowest level for a century, the Green vote fell 3% and the independents who helped create and support this destructive green coalition are no longer in Parliament.

The other feature of this campaign was the high public interest in the election and the big dissatisfaction with all major parties. Lots of small single-issue parties were formed and contested the election. Most of these small parties were also opposed to the carbon tax.
And a few of them were smart enough to maintain strict discipline among themselves on how preference votes were directed, ensuring that some of them were elected to the Senate.

There was one bad note in the election. Two prominent new small parties, the Palmer United Party (PUP) and the Katter Australia Party (KAP) foolishly directed significant preferences to the ALP and/or Greens ahead of the Liberal/Nationals. This was done partly out of spite, but mainly in a big gamble that did not always pay off.

Bob Katter’s largely conservative supporters reacted badly to him “assisting the enemy” and his primary vote fell dramatically. His hold on his own electorate has become marginal. Clive Palmer’s pact with the Greens got less publicity before the election and he did surprisingly well all over Australia. He probably got one Senator elected because of his shady deal with the green devils, but then in another state a Green Senator will probably be elected on Palmer preferences. So we may be stuck for six years with at least one Green senator who should not have been elected.

Another feature of the election was the minimal support for the anti-coal-seam-gas party.

Now we need to make sure the new government dismantles the whole climate industry.

Stop Press: Germany’s conservatives also just won a massive victory in their latest election. Greens lost heavily, their vote falling from 16% in polls early in the year to 8% now (from 11% last election). More:

How to Untangle the Climate Bureaucracy:Last In, First Out

Abolishing the Climate Commission is a good start. However there are still seven climate agencies and 33 climate schemes in seven different departments yet to be rooted out.

What is the best way to unwind this huge un-necessary bureaucratic empire?

Use the old union maxim – last in, first out. Whatever parliament created in one silly summer afternoon can be unmade just as quickly.

Don’t merge, don’t reorganise, don’t rebrand – ABOLISH.

And do it quickly before more damage is done to our economy, our energy supplies and our environment.

And don’t worry about the climate. It will go on doing what it has always done - it will change.

Here is evidence that the above is not an exaggeration:

And here is how it should be done:

Untangle This?

If above image is missing a high resolution copy can be found at;

This original cartoon was done gratis at my request by freelance cartoonist Steve Hunter. Steve and I both give anyone permission to publish with acknowledgement. If you like it, send a subscription and we will pay Steve.

Killing the Carbon Tax is Not Enough we must alsoAbolish the Unreliable Energy Targets

Killing the carbon tax is not enough to restore sanity to Australia’s energy policies - the Renewable Energy Targets must also be abolished.

No matter what laws are passed in Parliament, wind/solar power can never supply reliable economical grid power - their fundamental flaws are too numerous.

Their low energy density means that large areas of land must be blighted to collect a significant quantity of power.

Moreover, their intermittent supply pattern means that they cannot maintain a predictable electricity supply.

And even if some magic cheap storage system is invented, the expensive wind/solar generating facilities will remain under-utilised for more than 60% of the time, and up to 30% of any energy stored will be lost in transfers.

Finally, without storage, green power needs full backup from reliable generation plants (which must also operate intermittently).

Germany is proving that an advanced society cannot survive on wind/solar energy, even with support from French nuclear power, Swedish hydro-power, Russian gas and Polish coal.

For too long, green dreamers have forced their daft ideas on Australia’s power supply network. We need to employ real power engineers and grown-up energy technology. 

The Renewable Energy Targets should be renamed “Unreliable Energy Targets” and abolished immediately.

If you would like to read more:

Germany’s biggest wind developer goes bankrupt:

How Electricity became a luxury good in Germany:

Germany commits economic suicide with green energy dreams:

The Windfarm Disease infecting Britain:

Arctic Ice Confounds Costly Computers

Six years ago, the British BBC reported dolefully that climate models predicted the disappearance of Arctic Sea ice by 2013. This was supported by Al Gore, Australia’s ABC and all the usual alarmists.

Unfortunately for them, Arctic ice now stretches in a continuous sheet from Canada to Russia and twenty yachts that planned to publicise this year’s ice-free Arctic are now stuck in the ice.

Arctic ice comes and goes, continually confounding costly computer models.

Gillard’s carbon tax, Rudd’s emissions trading scheme, Abbott’s direct climate action and the Greens’ energy targets will have no effect on it.

For those who would like to read more:

The original BBC scare-mongering:

And the Northern Hemisphere snow cover. No alarming losses here:

Arctic Sea Ice to Grow as Global Cooling Era Takes Hold:

Global Cooling for 15 years in USA:

"If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way".

Taxing Air

Ever since life appeared on Earth, it has been nourished by four essential natural atmospheric gases – nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour and carbon dioxide. We breathe these gases every day, and carbon dioxide is the primary plant food that supports all life on earth.

The taxes on carbon dioxide have thus achieved the politicians’ dream – taxing the air we breathe and the food we eat.

And it is all for nothing. It is now obvious that:
  • we have had most of the warming we could expect from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  • the warming to date is mostly beneficial for life on earth.
  • the increased carbon dioxide is certainly beneficial to all life.
  • billions have been totally wasted on this western intellectual insanity.
  • we need to sweep away all traces of the climate scare before far more damage is done to our economy, to the cost of living and to the reliability and cost of future electricity supplies.

Germany spending $110 billion to delay global warming by 37 hours:

And to buy a good book entitled “Taxing Air” go to:

And watch out, taxing sunlight may be next. Spain has levied a tax on those who gather sunlight:

We Have a New Consensus: 99% of Climate Models Overestimated Global warming. 

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

“I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.”
- John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The Last Word

Australia shows the way by sacking its useless, pointless climate commissioner:

Viv Forbes

Viv Forbes takes responsibility for anything above that attracts official interest as “Election Comment or Advice”.
His address is 153 Schneiders Road, Rosevale, Qld. Phone 0754 640 533.

Is this you? We receive some welcome subscriptions direct to our bank account. Thanks to those people. Usually we know or can work out who they come from, and we thank them. But occasionally we have no idea who sent them. So if you did subscribe, and we have not thanked you, thanks and apologies – pls let us know.

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Snake Oil Salesman Suzuki fails simple science test. (Updated)

From Prof Ole Humlum's Climate4You Aug 2013
Everyone interested in climate science knows of the main data sets for measuring global temperature; the two satellite data sets, the remote sensing system (RSS) and the set from the University of Alabama Huntsville. The other data sets are NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and from the Hadley climate research unit the  two HadCRUT sets with different methods of tweeking - HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT 4.

David Suzuki has made a career out of travelling the world pushing the alarmist view of climate change.
Last 12 years from above
Surely then he would be aware of these global temperature data sets. And yet on QandA last night, when asked about them by Bill Koutalianos, he seemed to be unaware of them.

Bill: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?  
Suzuki: ...yeah well don’t know how, er where er why you’re saying that. The 10 hottest years on record as I understand it have been in this century. In fact the warming continues, it may have slowed down but the warning continuous and every body is considering some sort of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong - as far as I understand – we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they're thinking. 
Last three years temperature turning down

Bill: UAH; RSS, HadCruT, GISS- data that show a 17 year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory.  
Suzuki: What is the reference - I don’t  er…..  
Bill:Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC uses…. Those Data sets show a 17 year flat trend which suggest there may be a problem with 
At this point Suzuki interrupted
Suzuki: There may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville Alabama who has taken the data and come to that conclusion.

It seems it first, Suzuki, this snake-oil salesman, appears not to know about the datasets that all climate scientists use,  then, when he  hears UAH he refers obliquely to John Christy and denigrates him  although Christy has been  a former IPCC author. Christy was a lead author of the 2001 report by the IPCC. 

From Watts Up with That:

The details are below and are based on the SkS Temperature Trend Calculator:
For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.120 +/-0.129 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.141 +/- 0.163 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.092 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.104 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.102 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not statistically significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since August 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since January 1995 and
NOAA since June 1994.

Later, Suzuki refers to the supposed consensus. Much has been written of the fraudulent studies of the consensus. Just last week a new opinion piece came out:

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming

Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That’s the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.

Suzuki referred to the Naomi Oreskes piece that appeared in Science in 2004. A curious choice considering the flaws in that piece of science fiction.


What Oreskes got wrong:

Dr. Peiser used “global climate change” as a search term and found 1,117 documents using this term, of which 929 were articles and only 905 also had abstracts. Therefore it is not clear which were the 928 “abstracts” mentioned by Oreskes, and Science did not, as it would have done with a peer-reviewed scientific paper, list the references to each of the “abstracts”.  

Significantly, Oreskes’ essay does not state how many of the 928 papers explicitly endorsed her very limited definition of “consensus”. Dr. Peiser found that only 13 of the 1,117 documents – a mere 1% – explicitly endorse the consensus, even in her limited definition.
Is Suzuki that ignorant, or does he turn a blind eye to the science that doesn't fit?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
See also: WUWT

Climate campaigner David Suzuki doesn’t know what the climate temperature data sets are

                                     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


See Also QandA from the viewpoint of Canada's Ezra Levant: